Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Anyone arguing to invalidate software patent is cutting their own 
>> throat, ***if*** they think they have any sort of software to which 
>> they might want to apply a patent.
> 
> I don't think you understand how it works. Have you actually 
> participated in a patent dispute where such a concern is brought up?
> 
You just got through saying that precedent applies to identical or 
nearly identical situations. So your question.. doesn't make sense in 
context of what I am saying. Take the whole "one click buying" thing, 
for example. There is almost certainly some "similar" things that other 
companies would love to patent. Arguing that the patent shouldn't exist 
at all, instead of merely how obvious it seems, would set a precedent to 
deny similar patents entirely.

In other words, what I am saying is, attacking the validity of software 
patent is a meta issue that effects "all" of them, not just the specific 
cases. It has to, by definition. So that is never the method used to 
attack them, but any arguments are centered on "specifics", since that 
allows you to attack the specific patent in question, without 
invalidating multiple patents in the process, by invalidated the *meta* 
issue of if they should be such patents. Or, are you honestly trying to 
claim that when company X goes into court their first, or even last, 
argument is, "Well, such patents shouldn't happen anyway, because..."? 
That is what I mean by cutting their own throat. You don't make an 
argument that invalidates your own future cases, just to win one where 
someone else is suing you over supposed infringement.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message